Yeah, I knew the name and character from Greek mythology, just didn't know her in relation to Marvel.
Agents of SHIELD: Season 6
- Thread starter OCD Geek
- Start date
Ok. For a second there I thought DC's Shadow Lass accidentally crossed over into the Marvel universe.
I don't see why a “change” in the time travel rules would constitute a problem at all. Changing the timeline, and having branching timelines, should be indistinguishable from one another to people participating in those timelines, and are only two different interpretations of what they have observed happening – the former that there's meta-time, in which the earlier timelines get erased (thus rejecting meta-time travel), the latter that all the former timelines still “exist” in some form, though not necessarily one that you could use to reach them.
It's fiction that for some odd reason decides to add wrinkles to distinguish them, like people with ability to view the timelines, or people disappearing when the timeline changes. The latter makes the whole thing make no sense, of course, as it implies different time travel rules for objects and information, and creates the unnecessary question – if the person interfering with the timeline disappeared, why didn't that reset the timeline to the original state?
Additionally, you can have multiple “contradictory” time travel rules, for example, if you have multiple means of time travel which result in different, or even with the same rules, for example, a branching/changing timeline can eventually converge to a time loop, which
or a branch of a timeline can be “erased” / shelved if it is really unlikely to occur, because it would always be interfered with, the pervasive changes degrading it to a helper timeline, such as those converging into a timeloop, which could explain how Chronicom's timeline interference can be a threat even under MCU rules. That, of course, under the assumption that, either option isn't really meaningfully different from the other.
Also S.H.I.E.L.D. don't know the rules, grandson simply assumed he did because he didn't disappear, therefore he assumed branching. S.H.I.E.L.D. can assume threat of changing timeline even if there's none.
And why do you trust the Ancient One on this one anyway?
It's fiction that for some odd reason decides to add wrinkles to distinguish them, like people with ability to view the timelines, or people disappearing when the timeline changes. The latter makes the whole thing make no sense, of course, as it implies different time travel rules for objects and information, and creates the unnecessary question – if the person interfering with the timeline disappeared, why didn't that reset the timeline to the original state?
Additionally, you can have multiple “contradictory” time travel rules, for example, if you have multiple means of time travel which result in different, or even with the same rules, for example, a branching/changing timeline can eventually converge to a time loop, which
would explain how Steve didn't violate the rules
Also S.H.I.E.L.D. don't know the rules, grandson simply assumed he did because he didn't disappear, therefore he assumed branching. S.H.I.E.L.D. can assume threat of changing timeline even if there's none.
And why do you trust the Ancient One on this one anyway?
There's a fundamental difference, narratively speaking. In the physically realistic model used by Endgame, time travel cannot endanger the existing timeline. You can make any amount of change to the past and your original history will be totally safe. So that makes it impossible to do many of the standard time travel plots such as "We have to stop the time travelers from erasing our existence" (e.g. Timeless) or "We already erased the world we know and have to put it back" (e.g. "The City on the Edge of Forever"). The reason so much fiction favors the physically nonsensical "erasure" model is because it creates the danger that the characters' whole world could be destroyed, and that generates dramatic stakes. If there's no chance of your existing timeline being erased, then if people go back in time to alter history, you don't have to worry about it. You don't have to chase them into the past and stop them, because they'll just create a separate branch and your own timeline will be completely fine.
In other words, creating a new timeline and replacing the old one might look indistinguishable to the person doing the time travel, but they'd be very distinguishable to everyone else. The time traveler would see a new timeline replacing their old one, but the people back home would just see the time traveler vanish and never return, and life otherwise continuing normally.
Although I guess you could still do a story about the heroes going back to stop a time traveler for altruistic reasons, e.g. if their actions would bring mass destruction in the new timeline they created. The people in that timeline would be just as real, so the heroes could feel an obligation to protect them from harm.
(Which was the reason Cap returned the stolen Infinity Stones, so the people in those other timelines would have them available to fight the bad guys when the time came.)
Even if the story is told from the time traveler's perspective, it makes a big difference in terms of the stakes. If you know, and they know, that there's no danger that their own reality was erased, then that reduces the stakes to a merely personal level -- can they get back home? So it's not as existentially, cosmically urgent that they put things back. They're not saving reality, they're just trying to get back to their own comfort zone. Similarly, if they know they can't erase their timeline, then there's no need for the usual story trope of "Be very, very careful in the past to make sure you don't change anything," and that radically changes the way the story is told. (Which is actually refreshing, since that's been done to death by this point.)
Whom are you asking, and trust about what?
The time-travel theory presented in the film is explicated by Bruce as well as reinforced later by the Ancient One, and it's proven by the fact that the major changes to 2012 and 2014 have no effect on the present-day story. It's also the way time travel would have to work according to real physics and logic, and we know the filmmakers consulted with physicists to get it right.
Last edited:
@Christopher please take care to avoid spoilery content in the future. We do have guidelines pinned to the top of the forum referring to the wait time for what is considered spoiler content
^Sorry, I keep forgetting. And I thought I was being vague, but I guess not vague enough.
A certain character from Season 5 will be back
Time travel in Endgame was accomplished by the use of fictional materials that do not operate according to the principles of actual physics, so to call that film's time travel model "physically realistic" is a contradiction in terms.
Look what I finally found...
I think he meant that the writers of endgame consulted scientists on it.
Season 6 will hit Netflix on September 1st.
"They consulted scientists" is a too low a bar for the claim of "physically realistic." Star Trek has consulted a great many scientists, and look at it. Entertaining and beloved, yes, but physically realistic, at best remotely.
Nine out of ten scientists agreed that time equals money.
Unless you have a time machine...
If time is money, doesn't that make an ATM* a time machine?
*Cashpoint if you're British.
Similar threads
